This entry is being used as a space to tack up some research for the coup d’etat that is going on to undermine the Trump administration. I started to write an article about it, but realized that this is a moving target that should be examined more closely.

Please note that the sources attached here have not been fully corroborated but any attempt to do so by outsiders would be most welcome. Also, they ascend in order that I viewed them – from earliest to latest. So check back to this article for more information and please feel free to comment.

The real reason why there is a lot of saber rattling over Russia and going to war with them?

Those who supported Hillary Clinton, or voted against Donald Trump, are questioning the validity behind the Electoral College. Their reasoning? Basically, because their candidate won the popular vote but lost the election due to the existence of the Electoral College.

Those that support this view do not understand the basics of our civic system in the United States. First, and foremost, we are not a democracy, but a republic. The Founding Fathers of this nation were students of history and, as such, great admirers of the Classical world. They were steeped in not only the history of the country they were leaving behind, but also in the history of the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome which provide the bedrock for our Western culture.

There is no clearer understanding of this than the hesitancy of the Greek world in embracing democracy, an Athenian invention. Democracy comes from two Greek words, demos (the people) and krateo (to rule). The concept was basically to allow the citizens of Athens equal access to the political power of their polis, Athens. This seems like a good idea to us today, but to the ancients, this was a dubious proposition. For starters, education is a critical component in the composition of a society that decides to run itself. The divide in education, perhaps in antiquity, was greater than it was today – or so we would like to think in our arrogant modern setting. In fact, one could make the argument that the educational divide is greater today than it ever has been due to socio-economic factors as well as cultural factors in which certain portions of our society don’t value education the way other portions do.

Socrates was a big proponent of this line of questioning. The protagonist in Plato’s Republic (Book 6), Socrates introduced a line of questioning asking members of the elite Athenian society to elucidate their reasoning for supporting democracy. The criticism, for Socrates, fell on the overall qualifications of the electorate – did they have the intellectual, moral, and academic chops to really decide who was best qualified to lead?

The School of Life put out an excellent video illustrating this point:

In the end, ironically, it was a panel of his peers that put Socrates to death via the cup of hemlock he was forced to drink. The charge? For corrupting the youth of Athens.

The point about distrusting democracy becomes even more valid and we see that in this election in particular. What are the reasons for which a vote was cast for Clinton? For Trump? Judging by the reactions of the Clinton supporters, the irrational fears about Trump’s potential as the executive of the land were the overriding factor. There were not rational decisions being made for Clinton and dismissals of Trump based on perceived shortcomings. Most of the criticism leveled against Trump are hyperbolic and inflammatory circling around identity politics and attempts to attribute motive – all standards of the fascist left.

With the media demonstrating itself to be nothing short of a cheerleading force in support of the Democratic nominee, those who only tune in for their news without any outside sources are not straying beyond their own echo chambers and are shaping themselves into “low information” voters. If education is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy, then Socrates’ criticism holds true. We are a sick society due to the contagion found within our education system; people don’t even understand the basics of how our government works let alone what its mission is. Are we, as a country, ill-qualified to choose our own leaders?

This was a grave concern of the Founders. They mulled over whether or not they, in their time, were morally ready enough to become a self-sustaining government and move on without a king. The ability for self-restraint and control requires this moral grounding. This is why a story like Cincinnatus and his plow was so recognizable to the revolutionaries who founded our country. Today, very few would even be able to retell the story, let alone understand its relevance. Not so for George Washington, who was regarded as the incarnation of Cincinnatus to the early United States founding generation.

Which brings us to the Electoral College. This is truly a firewall against demagoguery. It is a fail safe to protect the republic and prevent a tyrant from taking over. The Electoral College’s role is to be precisely what Socrates was critical of – a qualified voting group that would finalize an informed decision to select our nation’s executive. The average voter has a wide range of motivations for their candidate – as we can see from the protests and recount scams. What the “low information” voter is not entirely aware of is that they are not voting for the president, but instead are voting for the electors chosen by their party.

And Socrates’ criticism is realized and a solution is found. We have a republic, not a democracy, that serves to protect our natural rights – rights which are guaranteed at birth. The Electoral College plays a fundamental role in this process. Anyone who doesn’t support this system of governance is either poorly educated or in support of tyranny, a system that was designed by the Founding Fathers to prevent.

Oh, and one last point. The cast of Hamilton criticized VP-elect Mike Pence while he attended their performance on broadway. They cast a finger at him and demanded that he represent them as well as his supporters in his administration. The irony is that it was Alexander Hamilton, as the author of Federalist Paper #68, outlined the reasoning for the Electoral College as well as the process by which it would function. Review for yourself here.

I have been contemplating a lot lately on the role of the ego. According to both the Buddhist and Taoist traditions, the ego is a trap. It is a source of limitation, an anchor that drags us down.

This seems to be antithetical to the philosophy of the West at first glance. It would seem that our culture is one that embraces individuality at the cost of all other aspects of life and that our role is to serve and fashion the ego. This, however, would be a grave misinterpretation of even the most fundamental classical philosophers.

In the Allegory of the Cave, from his dialogue the Republic, Plato describes the construct of the cave. It is an image that suggests the context within which we humans may live. It could be cultural in that the ideas that shape our outlook are the walls of the cave itself. The choice is ours to live within the constraints of the cave or to dare to venture out. The cave represents a sense of safety, a space in which we can reside that will be beyond the reproach of harm – or so we think. Plato warns that to dwell in the cave is to live within a dimly lit world of half-truths; it is to live within darkness. Yet, the choice to do so is ours. It is courage and even a sense of adventure that may compel us to draw ourselves out.

Perhaps. The remedy, Plato states, is education. The goal of education is transformation – we are no longer satisfied with dwelling within the confines of the cave but find comfort in moving outside and beyond its trappings. This would also seem to indicate that the ego functions much like the cave – it is an old, familiar haunt that provides us with a sense of stability in a world filled with fear and uncertainty. Yet, this is false. Our inability to move beyond the cave also means we will not grow and when something fails to grow anymore it is essentially dead.

This relates to concepts of the ego being a cul-de-sac in both Buddhism and Taoism in that the ego limits growth; the ego is the great inhibitor. As Lao Tzu once said, “When I let go of who I am I become what I might be.” The ego limits potentiality. By choosing to stay where you are and only to voyage around the familiar, living within our echo chambers, we are not daring to expand our horizons beyond the immediate. We are denying ourselves of the great potentiality that lays all around us. The universe is teeming with opportunity and potential, we just have to be attuned to it. In denying ourselves this chance and this experience, and instead only choosing to stay close to our ego, we are denying our own growth. This is also perhaps the mystery behind wu wei in Taoism and allowing ourselves to be like water and flow through our experiences.

Both the mystical Western traditions and the philosophies of the East, found in Buddhism and Taoism, require one to meditate in order to still the mind. The endless chatter that resides in the mortal mind is a distractor and it is also the very reinforcer of the ego itself. If we can still this chatter from time to time, as the Greeks would say attain hesychia, then we can stop serving the ego but instead become masters over ourselves. In this way we can truly embrace the wisdom found in Plato’s maxim, “know thyself” (gnothi seauton or temet nosce in Latin). To be aware of the ego is to be aware of one’s own current limitations. Being aware is not the same as serving it. In order to move beyond our own current limitations, we need to be open towards changing and channeling new experiences into our lives. This is the heart and purpose of education and perhaps, what Plato was warning about in the Allegory of the Cave.

I found this message reinforced in all places the latest Marvel movie, Dr. Strange. In his journey, Dr. Steven Strange goes from world-renowned neurosurgeon to mystic. It is through his stubborn nature that he achieves this as he cannot let go of the fact that he can no longer use his hands like he once could, being affected by a horrible car accident that took away the use of his hands for surgery. His search for a cure leads him to the mysteries of Tibet and there he meets his master who teaches him in the mystical arts. The parallels to reality are not far off as there are mystics living at the roof of the world who are dedicated to the mystical arts that are based on Buddhist principals that do go into the realm of legend. At the core of the teachings, in the film, was the recognition of the role of the ego and how it can play a negative role when not in balance. It is interesting to note how popular culture can offer a form of initiation if one is willing, and attuned, to seeing it.

I am not Cuban. I would not pretend to be although I may get confused for one based on my looks. I grew up in and around south Florida and have many Cuban-American friends. It is a part of the tapestry of culture we have woven down here and the Cuban identity has become as interwoven as any. As such, the effects of Fidel Castro and his governance in Cuba has also affected our landscape down here in south Florida as well. It is also strange that I should feel very much connected to these events even though I do not claim any direct ties to Cuba or its people. I do feel the impulse to go out into the streets and bang on pots and pans though.

My mother was practicing lunging under desks during the Cuban Missile crisis. My uncle got drafted by the Chicago Cubs out of Hialeah High School – a very different demographic back then than it is today. These are all indirect effects that have shaped me and my family. My friends who have either come from Cuba or whose families have come from Cuba also have had this indirect affect on me as well. So again, although I cannot claim a direct tie in this event, I feel as though I should.

Castro’s death is an important event for not only the Cuban people, but the people of the North and South America. United States foreign policy has been affected by it and, indeed, helped create the canvas from which Castro would do his work for his nation in the 50 or so years of his rule.

There will be many trying to weigh in on the moment and will cast their judgements. Most of which will either range from the relieved to those who are moderate and on the fence to those who will praise Castro’s life work.

Those who will shed tears of joy at Castro’s death will do so mostly from the direct experience of his oppressive rule – many have fled Cuba to seek freedom and opportunity they could not find in Cuba. Many have risked their lives in order to obtain what many of us in the United States take for granted. And those who will have even tempered views will form these views from a standpoint of privilege. At best, they will acknowledge Castro’s oppressive, authoritarian rule but will moderate those comments with caution as they note his accomplishments and advancements for his people.

We cannot be blind to any of this. One man is responsible for Castro’s decisions and that is Castro himself. He led; he did what he wanted to do and was obliged to do. He made decisions that were in his own best interests and the preservation of his own power. This cannot be denied, even by those who would admit admiration for Castro. See former Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen who was lambasted for showing his admiration for Castro – albeit from a standpoint of naïveté. Then again, Guillen does hail from Venezuela where Hugo Chavez was a fixture, to say the least. The political environment in south Florida for a pro-Castro point of view is about as welcomed as an art exhibit on the portraits of the prophet Muhammed.

Well, maybe that was a bit hyperbolic because Guillen is alive and not living in fear of being killed.

And that is precisely the point. Here in the United States, we can be dissidents and criticize the government and its policies without any harm coming to us. At least, not any mortal harm; sure there is the new “social” death we see on social media that comes from this modern form of damnatio memoriae where individuals who criticize a political narrative are turned into lepers, but no one actually dies. Not like in places like Cuba, or Venezuela, at least.

That said, I would like to have an honest assessment of Castro and his policies. The apologists will say he was able to overthrow a mafia/US backed military dictator and also that he was able to rid Cuba of a paralyzing class system. Yet, how has that been a benefit to the Cuban people at all? Communism, outwardly anyway, cannot tolerate the existence of a class system of any kind. It was the mandate of the Marxists that the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie – and that this overthrow would not come in a peaceful manner but throw a violent act. It was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who asserted this view in their Communist Manifesto – which they based on their own historical observation. Yet, a fundamental part of this brand of political demagoguery was that the state in question would have to be industrialized first. After all, those who produced the goods were being exploited by those who owned the means of production.

This was carried out in places like Russia in 1917 and in Cuba in 1959. The world watched with much anticipation about what would happen next. The Communist societies would proclaim to be friends of man but their altruistic rhetoric would ultimately descend into blood-baths of power grabbing. Millions were killed and removed in the Soviet Union during Stalin’s regime; many more would be cleansed from the earth in Mao’s China. Yet for Castro’s Cuba?

Castro would parade around in his military garb but no one was really buying the formal military vestment as anything other than window dressing. At least, not outside of Cuba. In fact, Castro would be likened in many ways as a friendly form of Communism by those unaffected by his rule. He went on a grand tour of the US prior to denouncing US involvement in his government and siding with the Soviets. Many in the US were amicable to Castro before this bait and switch took place. Even today, many a college student will wear an Ernesto “Che” Guevara emblazoned t-shirt around to show off how politically savvy they are.

Or really, just how naive and impressionable they are.

So, what of Castro’s Cuba? Is he the friendly, misapplied do-right we are led to believe? Many of those who would make such a claim, again, do not have their ideas rooted in any reality. They are not basing their opinion on experience. Those who have been in direct contact with the Castro and his regime were desperate to flee it. So desperate that they would send their children, along with strangers, on “sea vessels” to get to the US coastline – mostly the friendly shores of our Sunshine State. Forget not that the Cubans had a special arrangement with US immigration laws – the so called “wet foot, dry foot” clause that meant as soon as they touched US soil they were safe to seek US citizenship.

This is, in fact, one of the reasons why immigration reform needs to be examined and why the inequity creates so many hard feelings across those from Latin America.

The apologists will try to dance around such realities. They will dance around the damage that Castro has done to his own people through jailing and liquidation of his political opponents.

Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire. Presente!

Evil serves its own purposes and Castro’s seat of power has long looked after its own construction and maintenance. Yet, we tend to overlook a major fundamental problem within the political sphere of so-called Latin America, and that would be its cultural roots formulated by the conquistadores of imperial Spain.

Simon Bolivar, in his Jamaica Letter, was very critical of formulating new nations within the collapsed sphere of the Spanish empire of the New World. “El Libertador” would pose the question that would lay bare the problem that continues to plague much of the region even to this day – that of culture. In the founding of the United States, there was an escape from religious persecution that led to the establishment of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The natural rights that each person was born with were not to be guaranteed by the state, but rather were to be protected by the government. The natural rights that each person was born with could not be denied. The founding fathers of the US were very dubious of the sustainability of their creation, they often remarked about the moral fiber of their fellow citizens. They were students of history and students of humanism. They were pragmatists as much as they were idealists. They knew power corrupts and government is in the business of brokering power.

In the former Spanish New World, the people there were subjugated by force, an imperial force that exploited its land and peoples for its resources. It was the origin of the Atlantic Slave Trade as the native population proved to not be up to the physical task – most of which were wiped out due to disease. (In fact, the conquest of the Aztec would not have happened if not for the disease that the conquistadors were carrying with them via Cortez and his men.) It was the use of force, and advanced technology, that kept the native populations in check – this was the land of the caudillos. Spain and Portugal created a hierarchical society in which opportunity was determined by blood: the peninsulares were those born in Spain and Portugal on the Iberian peninsula (aka European); the creoles were those descended from Europeans; then came the mestizos and mulattoes which were both of mixed racial blood (native and African slaves, respectfully); and finally, on the bottom of this social pyramid were the natives and slaves themselves. This is the legacy of imperial Spain, one soaked in blood at the tip of the sword (more likely, a musket) which divided their society along strict racial lines. The more white you were, the better your life would be as you ascended to the top of the pyramid. It was social pre-determinism.

When we look at Castro and his “reform” of Cuba, we see a similar trajectory in that his political impulse and desire to grab power followed. It was not to reform and free Cuba of this entrenched identity, but rather to simply turn it to his favor. The regime of military dictator Fulgencio Bautista was replaced by the military dictatorship of Castro, a supposed freedom-fighter who claimed to represent democracy. Bautista, it should be noted, was of mixed race and descended from slaves.

In Castro, we do not have a Simon Bolivar who simply used a method to liberate his own people. Castro was another caudillo, who dressed the part, and used force to assert his will on his island. He used the USSR to leverage his position from an internal coup staged by the US and other anti-Castro elements that were sure to rise up and try to take back their island and their way of life. Let’s be honest, Bautista had to also implement coercion to maintain control – but this is also an unfortunate effect of the Spanish legacy in the region. Could a bridge be built in which the people of Cuba could gain the ability for self-governance? Of course, but it would take time. This was something Bolivar understood. This is something, perhaps, Puerto Rico has begun to learn under the protection and tutelage of the US (even though economically they are in deep trouble). Yet, it cannot be argued, that Castro’s control over Cuba has set back his island nation quite literally almost 50 or so years. What rises from this remains to be seen, but Raul Castro will not right the ship as he was in on the ground floor with his brother as El Comandante.

Protests in the streets of major cities are underway as the participants decry the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States. The grounds for these protests are claimed to be carried out on the basis that Trump, and his supporters, are racists, xenophobes, bigots, and homophobes.

The whole democratic process is undergoing scrutiny by the violent minority in protest because essentially their candidate did not win and a candidate that, they feel, represents the worst of America, has won.

We live in a country that is deeply divided. The raw numbers will not show this as most remain in the middle of this bell curve, but those on the fringes are much more vocal – and have always been. One need not dig very deeply to be reminded that the Bolsheviks, the group behind the radical Communist movement in Russia in 1917, referred to themselves as a “majority” in order to manufacture consent. Their true numbers, however, were much smaller than they would have liked to admit. Yet, this is the force of history – a small dedicated few who, through a cohesive message, turn the tide to affect their agenda.

This is, however, not the case with the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States. This was not a small fringe contingent that pushed their man into power. It was a groundswell that had to overcome large obstacles that have plagued this country’s politics for a long time now. John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower, both men from opposite parties, outlined this system and the obstacles they presented many years ago. Complicit in this system of control was the media, academia, and Hollywood – or the cultural industrial complex.

The truth? Most seek confirmation bias and do not seek objective truth. We don’t corroborate information before passing it along or forming judgement. Right now, the protestors’ uniform message is one that they feel denounces hate speech. In Trump, they see an individual who is filled with hate and who has leveraged that hate to win a national campaign. They are afraid; they fear for their lives. They believe the labeling that was bestowed upon Trump by the Hillary Clinton campaign – something that started even before he became the Republican nominee.

Hillary Clinton favored a candidate like Trump as she felt that she could knock him out at the national election. A great article articulating this is found here. The Clinton campaign had a machine that included support among all three major influences of our nation – the media, Hollywood, and academia. This shows the depth of the collusion regarding the media – the other two branches are known to favor her and her party.

What emerges is that most who are speaking out against Donald Trump are using the rhetoric they were supplied by these outlets. In fact, most of these young, millennial protestors are actually claiming to be Bernie Sanders supporters – who are not only irate at the corruption of their own party, but seem to believe that as a result of this Trump was elected and thereby we, as a nation, have elected a racist bigot to the executive branch.

This also demonstrates the lack of substance needed to make a claim stick whenever the message is rallied against an easy target. In other words, the narrative must be supported and such a narrative, that white men are racists, is an easy one to make. Trump becomes an easy target, regardless of any evidence. Hate groups like the KKK are shown supporting Trump and through association Trump is pronounced guilty of hate speech. Yet, these same individuals neglect the fact that Louis Farrakhan, a black supremacist, both supports Trump and is very critical of president Obama – even though Farrakhan was a supporter of Obama in 2008.

When challenged, the body of evidence is speculative and lacks substance when it is argued that Donald Trump is a racist. Proving a man’s heart is indeed difficult. Very few arguments are actually made regarding Trump’s policies by these same protestors, it also should be noted. Bernie Sanders’ supporters love to claim the moral high ground because their candidate, whom they never heard of until this election, was dedicated to the civil rights movement and has an impressive activist record as a result. He has the cred. Yet, when it comes to his economic policies, his socialism shines through. This would never win him a general election, despite what his supporters may think but the fact that the primary was rigged against him only means that those who supported Sanders, and not Clinton, can claim that a vote for Trump is a vote for hatred. Amnesia about Clinton and her record seems to get a free pass because their target remains Trump. The basis for their attacks, however, have been created by the Clinton campaign and now, financially backed and supported by George Soros.

So the attacks and protests will be carried out against Trump. There will be no return fire because Sanders was not a nominee, which removes him from the discussion, and Clinton would be deflected as not the candidate of choice – as measured by the corruption seen via Wikileaks. The selective use of evidence to support an argument is only part of the problem and why we have such a huge divide in this country. The past 8 years have been a ramping up of this division as groups and sides were each placed against one another. You see the symptoms of this today marching the streets in protest. They represent a narrative, nothing based on fact but based on a narrative put in place by the opposition to Trump in order to set him up for failure. CNN perpetuates this narrative and likewise, the divide in our society is leaned up for full effect.

We are living in the pulse of history. This election represents far more than a simple ritual in our republic and a peaceful transition of power. In fact, this has been the most contentious election cycle in recent memory. Of this, there is no doubt.

The allegations, levied on both sides, are expected. Mudslinging occurs in every election to detract from the opposing candidate’s appeal. With Donald Trump, a reality TV persona, everyone expected the worst – and they expected that he would be pulling out all of the stops. It turns out, a neutral 3rd party has levied more damning accusations towards one of the candidates – that being Wikileaks and the candidate being Hillary Clinton.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. The accusations from Wikileaks have been far-reaching and damning. The indictment has gone beyond just Hillary Clinton and questioning her “fitness” as a presidential candidate but even extending towards our entire infrastructure that purports a free society. Our main institutions of journalism have been exposed to be not just heavily biased, as many have long suspected, but implicit in helping Hillary Clinton climb back into the White House. Outfits like the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, and most notably CNN have all been shown to collude in crafting a pro-Hillary Clinton message. From academia to Hollywood, the monopoly of culture is owned by the Democrats who get to label from their pulpits institutions they don’t agree with. We have a fascist culture in place disguised through the terminology of “political correctness” and anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the narrative is essentially silenced and sentenced to death, albeit a social one and not an actual one. It is essentially a modern version of damnatio memoriae and identity politics is the weapon.

Dr. Steve Pieczenik makes a bold claim that representatives from 17 intelligence organizations are working to halt Hillary Clinton’s seizure of power. She has a powerful apparatus, if we are to believe the leaks found in Wikileaks. The Clinton campaign has not denied the evidence found in Wikileaks but instead has tried to deflect and blame a boogie man in Russia and Vladimir Putin.

If Dr. Pieczenik’s claims are true, this is a very hopeful time for America. We see FBI director James Comey, whatever his motivations, has decided to continue his look at the Clinton emails. Fox News, rumored to be sliding towards Clinton in their coverage, is putting more pressure on the Clinton campaign by publicly investigating the information coming out through the Wikileaks. Brett Baier has gone on record stating that there was a civil war brewing within the FBI and that there are those inside the FBI that were pushing for the investigation into Clinton to be taken to its probable end – an indictment. The Guardian reports that there is a large cohort within the FBI that is now banking on Trump winning and are dedicated to taking Hillary Clinton down.

For many, an indictment of a public official, so long in the spotlight, is unthinkable. Such was the regicide of King Charles I in England, when the king was eventually tried by Parliament and then executed publicly. This had also been an unthinkable moment prior because of the divine right to rule of kings. Today, in America, we tacitly hold a similar belief in that our public officials are somehow beyond the law – whether or not we legitimatize this claim is redundant. Our continued support through election and re-election of these individuals makes their claim and attitude legitimate. Of course, citizens who disagree and give voice to their disagreement have little recourse when the entire system is rigged and corrupt. The other institutions, designed to protect the rule of law, have not held up their end of the bargain – and it isn’t because these institutions are wholly corrupt; it is because their appointed leaders are corrupt.

The lens through which we view these actions and learn of this behavior is also controlled. This has long been known but due to the Internet, essentially the 5th estate, the public can not only have a voice but also can have a space to deliver communication that previously was covered up. The alternative media found on the Internet is doing the job that the now corporate-run media, owned by only a handful of conglomerates, should have been doing.

The political discourse in America has become stultified. There are low-information pundits and supporters who turn to their echo chambers for their own confirmation bias. People, in fact, generally run away from truth in favor of having their views confirmed – which is the power of social media and even these large scale media outlets. Yet, the culture in America has changed. People are tired of the political correctness holding thought hostage and pitting one side against another. People are tired of the falseness of the claims they see on these mass media circuits and tired of the spin.

What was once whispered in only dark corners for conspiracy theorists and the fringe is now coming to light as absolute truth. Unbelievable in its scope and effect, yet damning on account of the evidence. Now, not only are claims of corruption for the Clinton campaign being levied, but even more sinister claims such as pedophilia and even black magic and Satanic practices. These claims are starting to see the light of day.

One of these claims, which corroborates the claim made by Dr. Pieczenick above, is a thread that has appeared on 4chans. It also claims to be posted by a representative of this pro-America coup group, deep within the intelligence community. One of the darkest claims in purports:

The new leaks being released this week will provide documents in the form of emails, pictures, and videos. Within these will be evidence of Bill Clinton, as well as at least 6 other Government officials, taking part in sexual acts with minors. As well as evidence of Human trafficking that also included minors.

To have these claims now made in connection with a former president, borders on epic. This could be the regicide moment for the American public, where a line is crossed in which there is no turning back. The allegations of a pedophilia ring, headed by creepy billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, have been made and have factual basis. The Daily Mail published it in May of 2016 and here in the Washington Examiner.

If the alleged information in the 4chan thread is accurate, then one of the biggest stories in politics is just getting underway. There are several sources out there that are starting to corroborate one another. The “hactivist” group, Anonymous, has been warning about the oncoming onslaught of information. They have put out videos, but it is hard to attribute them to the group and their sources – so the information has to be taken at face value and cross referenced with other information to confirm it.

Are these allegations about a pedophilia ring in which both Bill and Hillary Clinton participated in true? How does the puzzle fit together with sexual deviant Anthony Weiner and his wife, and long time Clinton confidant Huma Abedin? It is rumored that the source for this latest blitz of information is the result of the NYPD investigating Weiner’s sexting to a 15 year old girl in NC. They came across a huge batch of information – 650,000 emails. The NYPD made an exact copy of the data and then contacted the FBI. Shortly thereafter, Comey came back out with a letter to Congress informing them of his continued investigation. Now, reports are that Comey is creating a different investigation and not continuing the same one from previously.

This may be the source of the in-fighting within the government and intelligence community that Dr. Pieczenik referred to. At any rate, with Wikileaks and other hackers out there, like Anonymous, the delivery and control of information has been totally busted open and disrupted. With that kind of leverage, opposition can now stare back at those who want to ram through their agenda. We now have the silent second American revolution on hand.

I am reluctantly commenting on the current election cycle publicly because of the contentious nature of this election campaign. This is also a condemnation of the state of freedom of speech in our country – it is virtually non-existent given the climate and the collaboration of the left lean of the media.

You would think in our culture of openness and tolerance, putting emphasis on diversity, that this would not be the case. Unfortunately, there is a narrative that fits within an agenda, and both pieces are delivered nightly via the major media outlets and the “re-education” camps – also known as our public school system and university system. The political correctness framework does not allow for free thought to be publicly expressed but instead stifled and pushed underground. Anyone who strays from the herd, is condemned and ostracized.

In a digital world, this could lead to a digital form of “death”; at the very least a damnatio memoriae where you will be struck from the records forever and instead labeled permanently and shamed forever. This is another reason why so many, despite their overwhelming beliefs otherwise, have chosen to stay silent and stand by until they can cast their votes and let the results set into place.

Yet it is this chilling effect which suppresses us all. True freedom cannot be lived in a vacuum and true freedom cannot exist without consequences. So it is in the name of freedom, and support of the freedom of expression, that I have chosen to make my voice heard here – if only meekly.

We have a genuine historical moment right now – and not just within the United States, but globally. The pendulum has swung back from a bureaucratic globalized machine government that sees people as commodities to be traded back and forth to a nationalistic fervor that hasn’t brewed since the beginning of the 20th century. Nationalism is a dirty word to the globalized crowd; the very ones who lecture and criticize everyone else for thinking small-mindedly and helplessly clutching to their national identities as something veritable and real. Yet, how can we have diversity without a tolerance for difference?

Moral relativism also teaches error. It is built on a shoddy foundation of intellectualism which works like a kitten batting at a ball of yarn. It is simply meant to be an exercise in entertainment, not an actual belief system that crystalizes into an ideology. Relativism states that all things are relative to the individual and that there are not overarching beliefs that we all can agree upon and recognize. This flies in the face of logic and, at the very least, contradicts a very important document for globalists and that is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR). Relativism also teaches that all cultures are good and that none are “bad” because, good and evil are simply social constructs anyway. This, of course, is a fallacy as well.

It is intellectualism that creates this sense of elitism that plagues societies. It creates the notion that a prerequisite for leadership is intelligence, and that intelligence is only held by the few. It creates a class structure of “haves and have nots” whereby the “haves” have high IQs and are touched by something ineffable and unobtainable by the hoi polloi. It creates distance. Its creates abstraction. Both of these things create bad leaders which result in bad societies further resulting in leadership that does not represent the will of its people – who are their true sovereigns. Leadership is about service, not about empowerment. Without this simple contract in place, leaders are due to fail.

Which brings me to this election cycle. There are three types of leaders – good ones, great ones, and bad ones. Good leaders lead by example – they lead because they have walked the walk and others will respect them for that. This is admirable, but a slow medicine for a society in deep need of good leaders – such a society will have to wait for the right ones, with the right experiences, to present themselves. This requires synchronicity and a perfection of timing.

Bad leaders are easy to spot – they compel others to follow. They do this by force. They compel with threats and laws, basically using negative reinforcement to force their perception of behavior through. The root of this is an intellectual elitist cache whereby the leaders know what is “good” for the rest of the population and, since they do not see it, will compel others to follow through creating drastic consequences for those that choose not to obey.

Then there are great leaders – they inspire others to action. This does not preclude that the leader has had to experience everything in order to acquire the ability to lead. No, great leaders have a way of motivating others to being or becoming better selves than they were. Great leaders simply provide an example, a guide, to light the way for others. They don’t lecture because, they don’t have to. They don’t pass frightening laws or loads of reforms in order to force a society to submit to their will. Instead, great leaders choose to serve and in the wake of this service, they inspire others to follow and do their best to serve others as well.

This election is a clear choice between a bad leader and a potentially great one. The corruption and scandal that surrounds one candidate is overwhelming. The other candidate has a challenging personality that can be abrasive to many. On moral grounds, there is no equivocation. Being corrupt is damaging by principle; it taints the very essence of the individual with a clear motivation of self-interest and will only surround oneself with people who fulfill the roles of commodities. This network will not be fabricated with the sinews of loyalty, but instead held together through leverage and convenience. Such assets will only to be tossed aside when no longer useful. It is the result of a scheming mind, a diabolical thinker that wants to drain value from everyone around them. To follow a corrupt leader is to fall into a black hole whereby everything will be tainted. It is a contagion. There is no accountability or responsibility save for preservation of the self. This is not a mindset of service and certainly not one who could aspire beyond the level of bad leadership.

Compare that with an abrasive personality that doesn’t seem to show much shame or remorse. Such a personality would not reveal an essence to be wholly damning; it is simply a facade, a surface layer of identity revealing itself. Could it be vanity? Yes, very much so. Yet, someone who lacks shame and has vanity is not necessarily precluded from being a good leader, let alone a great leader. It depends on the motivation that propels that individual. This is where most get identifying leadership wrong – they want to ascribe the position to the most morally resolute of us all or perhaps the “smartest” of us all. During times of leadership, there will be instances where morals will be challenged and the good of the many would outweigh the personal morals of the individual at hand. This is not to make light of morals, rather to demonstrate the inherent difficulties of being a leader. In order to do the right thing for the country, you may have to do something that you are not potentially comfortable with. This also does not require someone to become corrupt, rather to get dirty when it is needed but to have a core set of principles guiding decisions. Such conveniences of morality go out the window in certain situations such as existential struggles for survival. Preservation of the self, or of country, can never be reduced to what is proper and polite – in fact, that is hardly the case. Yet, the overriding drive is to serve the people and to do what is necessary in order to get the job done. A corruptible individual will only do what is necessary to assure the survival of the self and is incapable of service; someone who is willing to push aside their personal moral standards to do what is necessary for the greater good is self-sacrificing and the very spirit that is required by those who lead.

We can also dismiss with the “smarts” argument. Intelligence can lead to a false sense of self whereby we foolishly rely on our intellectual capacity alone to read situations yet what happens when we unknowingly have bad information or dysfunctional thinking processes? And what if we believe ourselves to be the smartest in the room – won’t we also feel threatened by those who are also smart? Such individuals surround themselves with “yes” men and have an echo chamber incubating their decision process. They don’t seek truth but instead confirmation bias. Being smart a strong quality of leadership does not necessarily make.

Perhaps you can read between the lines here. The corruptible personality is Hillary Clinton. I want to make this clear – I am only writing about this from an historical perspective, using the study of the past and human behavior to shape this writing. I cannot attest to anything being true except from my own perspective – take that for whatever it is worth. Yet, this is an historical moment. For a major presidential candidate, 11 days from the general election, to be under investigation by the FBI is unprecedented. To those who support Clinton, they will make light of the situation – out of denial or naivete – in order to not threaten their confirmation bias and pop their echo chambers. Make no mistake, for Director James Comey to reopen this investigation is huge and not done lightly but out of necessity.

The reason why Clinton was most likely not charged before and prosecuted was because this is a situation that could be filed under “too big to fail”. The corruption travels all the way up to the top of the food chain and in order to protect the credibility of our system, a sacrifice must have been made. Perhaps Comey was simply putting aside his personal morals for the good of the people in order to serve. Or, as some have suggested, he is corruptible, too, and only pushed the controversy aside because of quid pro quō. History will reveal that to us soon enough. Which makes the reopening of this Clinton case all that more damaging – if Comey was acting out of interest of the people and made the call to sacrifice his integrity, to reopen this speaks volumes about its necessity. If corrupt, and taken some form of payment, to reopen this means something pretty significant is up. Even Carl Bernstein, an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and journalist who revealed to the world the scandal of Watergate, is saying this is huge.

To speculate is pointless because the facts will be known soon enough. Yet, it is clear that those in law enforcement are not happy about the initial go-round. Investigators saw something big enough to convince Comey to act – and to act now. This is not let’s reopen to see what we have; it is we have established some pretty distinct evidence that is very heavy that necessitates a reopening. The scope of the information is not yet clear. I suspect it involves President Obama who has been running interference for Clinton for a while now. The question is why? Perhaps this scandal is the leverage for doing so.

Here we stand with two choices – a corruptible person who is disingenuous, to say the least, and a non-politician who says precisely what is on his mind and has no shame for doing so. The former will never stop fighting on behalf of self-interest while the latter has already lived a fulfilling life and is genuinely fighting for the right to serve others. We know this because value is found in wealth. Those who exchange value with others, or create more of it for others, come by it honestly and will find themselves rewarded. Those who do not essentially have to steal value from others in order to obtain their worth. Hillary Clinton wants to present herself as the perfect candidate – which is all too scripted, schemed, cold, and calculated. Donald Trump has presented himself as an evolving buffoon but with a genuine mission; he has evolved along the way and it is this quality of service that should earn him more attention.

We all know Plato’s famous Myth of the Cave – we just may not realize that we know it. After all, the Matrix trilogy was based on that concept. Some even ascribe Rene Descartes notion of “cogito ergo sum” to Platonic ideas. For those of us who know Latin, let’s show off a bit:

Basically, nothing is certain when we consider how we obtain information – through our senses. This is why the entire empirical system lay in doubt. Descartes was building on the ideas of Francis Bacon, as well as Plato, when considering the fields of study known as ontology and epistemology. Ontology deals with the branch of study about how things come into being while epistemology deals with the theory of knowledge and how we come to acquire it.

When considering the modern context for thinking and how we acquire information, we must recognize that we are living in Plato’s cave allegory. It has always been the case, which is why the allegory proposed by Plato continued to be applicable throughout philosophical exploration for thousands of years. Yet, we can see that even today there are veritable points in which we can detect our “cave”.

One easy way to get a sense of our limitations of our own thinking is to look at the current election cycle. Social media has enabled people to get into greater contact with one another and through a more efficient medium. Instead of calling someone up, who had to be at home waiting by the phone, only to talk with them and sort through small talk and other social protocols to establish communication, we could just drop messages through our social media channels without all of the pretense. This sounds great for the more introverted among us and enables us to cut to the chase when communicating. Yet, brevity is not necessarily good for the human animal, once described by Aristotle as a “political” animal.

A side trip: Aristotle did not intend to mean the modern sense of the word “political”, instead he meant a social aspect resides in all of us. The polis was the relatively new form of existence for human beings and it was the essential building block for human existence in the Greek world. The polis is the physical city where people would come together to collaborate in order to live out more prosperous lives. What Aristotle was simply saying is that humans have naturally moved towards this solution – it was our evolution. We crave being social with one another; not in order to chit-chat but in order to move beyond the subsistence level of survival into an existence of thriving. We evolved from hunters into farmers. See Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to get a better appreciation of this evolution.

Ok, we’re back. In other words, in order to establish a more efficient form of communicating with one another, we also lost what is at the heart of communication – interacting with one another. Interaction is a two-way street, we react and respond to each other’s cues. These may be positive or negative; they may be based on misperceptions or intentional. At any rate, we may be losing our ability to read one another and thereby understand one another. We simply drop information in places that have no context or even desire to be dropped. In short, we establish data points but receive no real feedback from them.

For example, most find a news item of interest that they then share on their preferred social media platform. Those that agree “re-share” it (or whatever terminology is used among these platforms), while those that disagree ignore it. Or, if it is emotive enough, they react to it by either confirming the content or denying it through a vitriolic response.

Note here, the emotive aspect of the news item. It must evoke an emotion in order for people to respond. This is a danger – because people only respond to things that they have an emotional attunement towards. This creates regrettable and reactionary responses usually at the height of emotion. There is no cool down period for rational thought allowed. Everything is instantaneous and filled with instant gratification.

As a result, we no longer seek truth through our interactions with one another, but instead only confirmation bias. This is different than truth in that people will prefer information that only supports their assumptions; truth requires us to grapple with other possibilities and keep an open mind before making a conclusion. In fact, it is the very birth of the scientific method through thinkers like Bacon and Descartes that has led to an establishment of science atop all other fields of study when it comes to epistemology. Yet, its reach has far extended beyond its original intent and created a cult of empiricism, but I digress.

Let’s put a finer point on this. Social media has only confirmed an emotional tendency in humans, especially in dealing with controversial information – information that threatens the self – to result in confirmation bias as opposed to truth seeking. The key is that confirmation bias is based on emotion whereas truth seeking requires a more rational approach. Which leads us to the final point – we live in a society that is deeply narcissistic.

Creating The Narcissistic Society

This is confirmed by the very fact that we use social media to create echo chambers around our assumptions. We close off any information that may contradict or challenge our beliefs. Belief, it should be noted, is not a choice but based on conviction – which is emotional and not based on objective information or evidence. As a result, we are self-serving in our interactions and only align with those who share our like-minded views or we move towards what is often referred to as “trolling”, to use the vernacular of the day, in which we gang up on and attack those who do not share our views.

All of this is dangerous. We have a bedrock for Orwellian group-think that often results in totalitarianism – the very thing George Orwell was critical of when he wrote his book, 1984.

The other reason this is dangerous is because it drives us not only towards more totalitarian forms of government, but further away from the very principles that founded our society here in the United States. Socialism, by its very nature, creates a selfish society. A great demonstration of this can be seen here:

Socialism, through entitlements, creates an ungrateful society. After all, how are you supposed to be grateful for something that you are entitled to? The problem with entitlement is not in the concept itself, but in its misapplication. Entitlement has to be checked by two other forces – responsibility and accountability.

Responsibility requires one to fulfill a certain duty. An individual is responsible for making sure something gets done. This is why power is bestowed among certain people an, in fact, one of the reasons why some jobs pay more than others. A foreman would earn more than the others working on his team because this person is responsible for the work that needs to be done and also because this person, taking on the role of leadership, is going to operate unsupervised as well.

Which leads us to accountability. The power that is granted to people for accomplishing tasks also means that this empowered individual is beholden to those who give the power – either directly or indirectly. Accountability is a two way street, those who are granted power must fulfill the obligations of their title or office for those they represent, otherwise they could (and should) be replaced.

Entitlement comes after responsibilities are met and accountability measures have been overcome.

Entitlement without responsibility and accountability, however, create a selfish society. The politics of entitlement will reflect this selfishness and be used to manipulate society. It will result in a de-incentivized society with no need to push the boundaries of knowledge for self-mastery, let alone betterment of society as each individual will only be looking out for themselves and their interests. “What’s in it for me?” becomes the mantra of that society and, as a result, they will give up their power and sovereignty to those who can give them the most entitlements. Ironically, it was John F. Kennedy who challenged his electorate by stating, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” I say ironic because it is the Democratic party that most strongly supports entitlement programs as a “champion” for the common man.

When the political system’s sole focus is to provide entitlement programs for its constituents, a totalitarian state emerges whereby its citizens are nothing more than clients and dependents. The path back towards independence and freedom becomes contaminated by a deep rooted mental contagion that is very hard to disentangle. Culture gets corrupted.

Emerging From the Cave

So here we are, sitting in our digital caves and only seeking confirmation bias. We are blind to the rest of the outside world and dare not venture into it because we are comfortable right here, staring at the screen of a reality that is made in our own image. In fact, we are encouraged to do this. Steven Crowder explains this effect on our current election cycle.

This is vanity and narcissistic. To live life unchallenged in our thinking is nothing short of selfish. It is also a life lived by giving away our own power. There is no opportunity for self-mastery and growth as a result.

All sorts of scapegoats are being blamed for this – the irresponsible journalism of today’s media, capitalism, an obsessive youth-oriented culture, religion, et cetera. All of this is a dangerous powder keg primed to blow but we are overlooking the simple solution, which is the irony: it is you, yourself.

The solution is the choices that you make that could stop this slide but it requires you to get uncomfortable with yourself and with your world real quick. It requires you to remove the smartphone-turned-virtual-reality-device that is strapped to your head. It requires you to actually go out and interact with people because, in doing so, we won’t simply be seeking the most convenient mode for interacting with one another, moving us outside our comfort zones, but putting us in contact with new ideas.

All of this is a direct challenge but there is no one to blame but ourselves. This is also the heart of the idea that created our current, freedom-loving society and its dissolution will take it away from us. We are required to step outside of the cave, like Plato reminded us all those thousands of years ago, and acquire information in ways that Descartes and Bacon outlined. Yes, both of them also doubted the nature of the information gathering process through our senses, but that also should be applied – a healthy dose of skepticism should be kept close by when consuming information anyway. This is how we liberate ourselves from the cult of the individual, which is reinforced through our social media echo chambers and our limited interactions with one another in our daily lives.

I have been following this election cycle more so than at any other point in my adult life, yet I have been very remiss on writing any sort of commentary on it for fear of, well, pretty much anything – losing friendships, sleep, being labeled one of the various “-ists”. The contentious nature of this election is, everyone will agree, extreme.

In fact, it is interesting to note the general reaction to both candidates. For Hillary Clinton, there is a long list of questionable activities that stem from various motivation points – from corruption to other negative personal qualities that do not fall short of psychological examination. And there is so much evidence for all of those claims. Criticism of Hillary Clinton does not start nor end with ad hominem attacks, but has much substance. The accusations by her political opponent of benefitting from a favorable media (to be polite) are not inaccurate.

Yet, for Donald Trump, the criticism comes from all over the map; most of which seems to lack a substantive attack but extends mostly from the ad hominem. For whatever reason, he is a lightning rod for the illogical and the emotive. There is no greater illustration of this than from noted economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell.

Sowell is noted for being sharply critical of current president Barack Obama. In fact, he instructed the electorate – or anyone who would listen with any sense of reason – to not re-elect him. Sowell cited Obama’s terrible economic policies as well as his arrogant stance on the importance his presence has on the economy. In contrast, Sowell provided several examples of past presidents who helped the economy thrive by basically getting out of the way and letting things settle on their own. The old maxim comes to mind. How does muddy become clear again? By not meddling our hands in it and letting it settle on its own. You can see Sowell’s interview full interview here.

Dr. Sowell outlines several basic principles, notably that presidents should execute the laws rather than reshape them they see fit. They also should get out of the way and let the economic engine do its thing. He also notes the theory of the benefits tax cuts for the rich have on the economy and government spending. That is a bit misleading; he actually asserts that a flat tax cut across the board is beneficial and he cites historical precedent to support his theory. In fact, it is no longer theory but has historical precedent – we have empirical data to suggest how this works.

Two things stand out: the president should cut taxes for everyone and get out of the way. The economy will right itself and, in addition, revenue will pour into Washington which could help us pay down this albatross of debt – thanks again to Mr. Obama.

So what does this have to do with Trump? Well, the Republican candidate is noted for saying he will cut taxes across the board and also put a tax cut incentive in place for businesses in order to encourage them to bring there money back to the US. Read more about his tax plan here. Basically, it sounds an awful lot like Dr. Sowell’s ideas shared in the interview mentioned above (Mitt Romney also held similar views to Sowell’s, but was not able to wrestle away the presidency from Obama, something Trump has been strongly critical of Romney for).

You would think then that Dr. Sowell would have found his candidate in Donald Trump, right? Well, not exactly. Sowell has been critical of Trump – but not so much for any substantive or reason of policy, but for his personality and antics. Stefan Molyneux, in his usual verbose way, dissects Sowell’s criticism of Trump and reveals what is left – not a whole lot outside of an attack on style and not on substance. See for yourself here.

As Molyneux pointed out, the emotions of this election do “trump” the facts. This is all the more evident even within what one would think would be coming from the same tribe. Sowell’s criticism of Trump are loosely tethered to him, and based on unsubstantiated claims about his potential as an economic steward of the national economy. Yet, if Trump were to follow Sowell’s advice, he would cut taxes and get out of the way – thereby confirming what Sowell theorized and backed up with historical facts. Trump has said he will go out and “make great deals” for the US economy, and it noted for wanting to revisit the Iranian nuclear deal which, Sowell, has also been very critical of.

As with Trump, it is all about vitriol. Logic has no claim when it comes to criticizing him – even though there is plenty of policy that could be examined more closely. What the genesis is for all of this can only be pointed back to the candidate himself and his particular style. As for the substance of his remarks, it seems the criticism of Trump falls well short or just gets so heated with emotion that the logical portions of the brain just flat out shut down.

Archives

Categories

Follow Us on Twitter

Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, null given in /home/content/82/14040082/html/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-branding/ultimate-branding-files/modules/custom-admin-bar-files/inc/UB_Admin_Bar.php on line 612